Online Defamation in Indonesia:
What Has Changed
Under the New ITE Law?

For years, Article 27(3) of the old ITE Law was widely criticised as a "rubber provision" — its vague formulation and severe sanctions (up to 6 years' imprisonment and a IDR 1 billion fine) made it a tool readily susceptible to misuse, often deployed to silence criticism and curb freedom of expression online.

When Law No. 1 of 2024 was signed into law by President Joko Widodo on 2 January 2024, one of its most consequential changes was the removal of defamation provisions from Article 27 and their reorganisation into two more structured provisions: Article 27A and Article 27B.

Article 27A of Law No. 1 of 2024 specifically prohibits online defamation conducted through electronic systems. The provision reads as follows:

The official elucidation to this article clarifies that "attacking honour or reputation" means any act that degrades or damages the good name or dignity of another person in a manner that causes harm, including libel and/or slander.

This is one of the most significant changes introduced by the 2024 revision. The Constitutional Court, in Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024, affirmed that Article 27A may only be applied to defamation directed at individuals or natural persons.

This means that if the party claiming to be aggrieved is a government agency, company, institution, or group, they cannot file a report against someone under Article 27A of the ITE Law. Only the individual whose reputation has been directly harmed may bring a complaint.

For those convicted of violating Article 27A, sanctions are set out in Article 45(4) of Law No. 1 of 2024. A separate, more severe provision addresses defamation-based extortion under Article 27B(2).

For a person to be charged under Article 27A, all of the following elements must be cumulatively established — satisfying one or two alone is insufficient:

1. 01.
   Intentional conduct (mens rea) The perpetrator must be proven to have deliberately intended to attack the honour or reputation of another person. Unintentional statements or negligence do not satisfy this element.
2. 02.
   Accusation of a specific matter There must be a specific accusation or statement directed at a particular individual — not merely general criticism, opinion, or evaluative disagreement.
3. 03.
   Intent to make it known publicly There must be an intent for the content to spread and reach a public audience. Private messages not disseminated further generally do not satisfy this element.
4. 04.
   Conducted through an electronic system The act must be carried out via an electronic medium: social media, instant messaging, email, online forums, or other digital platforms. Oral statements made face-to-face are not covered by Article 27A.

One of the most actively debated questions in the application of Article 27A is where legitimate criticism ends and punishable defamation begins. The Constitutional Court has affirmed that criticism — in the context of Article 27A — constitutes a form of supervision, correction, and suggestion with respect to matters of public interest.

Accordingly, criticism directed at public policy, official conduct, or matters of general concern does not automatically constitute defamation under Article 27A — provided it is grounded in fact and is not motivated purely by a desire to personally degrade the individual concerned.

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of law is highly dependent on the specific facts and context of each case. For your particular situation, we strongly recommend consulting a qualified legal professional with expertise in Indonesian digital and cyber law.